Marriage is one of humanity’s oldest institutions. For thousands of years, it was not a matter of government paperwork but a sacred covenant recognized “in the eyes of God” and witnessed by family, friends, and community. Couples exchanged vows in churches, synagogues, or even in small gatherings, with witnesses signing the guest book as a permanent record. That was marriage. No bureaucratic stamp, no government seal—just faith, family, and community recognition.
But in the 1920s, shortly after the passage of the 16th Amendment (creating the federal income tax) and the rise of the Federal Reserve, the state inserted itself into the marriage covenant. Enter the marriage license. Suddenly, man and woman could not simply vow themselves to one another before God and their community—they needed permission from the state. And permission, as always, came with a price.
The Government as a Third Party in Marriage
If you look closely at a marriage license, you’ll see what many overlook: there are three parties. Man, woman, and the state—whose name sits prominently at the top of the license. That makes the state the superior party in the arrangement, a third wheel with more power than either spouse. In legal terms, this is a contract of adhesion—a contract in which one party (the state) holds all the power, and the other parties (the spouses) have little choice but to accept the terms.
In nearly every other context, such contracts are considered inherently unfair. Yet somehow, when it comes to marriage, this imbalance has been normalized for generations.
The Failed Arguments for Licensing
Over the decades, governments have offered shifting justifications for marriage licensing. One by one, they have fallen apart:
- Miscegenation Laws: Licenses were originally used to regulate interracial marriage. States claimed they were necessary to prevent marriages between blacks and whites. That justification was struck down in Loving v. Virginia (1967), when the Supreme Court ruled that race could not bar two people from marrying.
- Mental Deficiency: Some states claimed licenses were needed to prevent marriages involving the mentally disabled. This too was eventually overturned as discriminatory.
- Child Marriage: States then argued licenses were needed to prevent underage unions. Yet, many states still allow children as young as 14–16 to marry with parental permission. That rationale doesn’t hold water when the law itself undermines it.
- Public Health: For years, blood tests were required under the claim that marriage licenses prevented the spread of disease. But that requirement was later deemed discriminatory and eliminated.
Every rationale the state has offered has either been overturned or abandoned. So why are marriage licenses still necessary?
A Revenue Stream and a Control Mechanism
Strip away the rhetoric and the justifications, and what remains is simple: marriage licenses are a form of taxation and control. They give the state a direct stake in the most intimate human institution. The state collects its tithe at the front end, then maintains superior authority over the marriage’s dissolution through no-fault divorce.
And no-fault divorce—with its vague “irreconcilable differences” clause—means the so-called marriage contract is no contract at all. One party can walk away at any time, leaving the other with no legal recourse. If any private business contract operated this way, courts would likely strike it down as invalid. Yet under the state’s authority, this asymmetry is enforced with the full weight of the law.
The Real Question: Why Keep Marriage Licensing at All?
If marriage is the foundation of family and society, why should the state hold veto power over it? Why should the government be the superior party in a sacred bond between man and woman? And if every justification for licensing has collapsed, why does the practice survive?
It survives because it is useful to the state. Useful for control. Useful for revenue. And useful for maintaining the illusion that the state—not God, not family, not community—is the true arbiter of marriage.
Time to Reconsider
Men, especially, must call out this overreach. The state has turned marriage into a contract of adhesion, then weaponized no-fault divorce to destabilize families further. Eliminating marriage licenses—and restoring marriage to its original form as a covenant between two people before God and community—would be a step toward rebalancing power, protecting families, and reasserting personal freedom.
Until then, the uncomfortable truth remains: when you marry with a license, you are not just marrying your spouse—you are marrying the state.
Special thanks to Bruce Eden, whose research, caselaw review, and personal insight into the financialization of family law helped shape the foundation of this article. Your work continues to educate and inspire those fighting for transparency and reform. Bruce is the Director of Dads Against Discrimination (DADS)–NJ & NY.
Discover more from RIPTIDE
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
